The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.

The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Simple: because the existence of non-consensual PvP means that there is no need for consensual PvP.

Because it's only hardcore for the solo player, not the fleet he runs into that kills him easily. Equal risk to both sides = more hardcoredness.

The value people get from PVP is only made possible by the presence of real risk, uncontrollable events.

I doubt people are going to start having duels instead of wars. Or duels instead of gatecamps.

All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.

Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.

The point is more PvP, which even someone who isn't heavy into PvP like myself agrees is good for the game.

I'm not talking about behaviour GÇö I'm talking about mechanics.

All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.

Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.

But through planning ahead and picking your fights to make sure you're going to win, things become very controlled and lack risk.

How is it "more hardcore" than flying out solo and finding a fight?

Why is this mechanic needed?

I agree with this. Nothing should be introduced that prevents someone from "crashing your party".

If you have an arena, or tournament tools, then I should be able to actually crash your contest.
The tools to have arena style tournaments would be fine, but not if it also comes with mechanics that prevent others from being douches and interupting it.

Arenas all day long as far as I'm concerned, but I better be able to witness it in person, and be able to crash it if I choose.
Otherwise it doesn't really have any business in EVE.

Don't you see that someone out there can plan better ahead and pick you, if he thinks he has a chance to win?

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP,,,

Cause 1v1 duals is not really PVP. Might as well open up a chat channel with your oppenent and type in /random, highest number wins.

You should always be prepared for PvP.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

You should always be prepared for PvP.

In response to others, arena combat used to be a reality. And it is odd that a canon that includes a slave/master dichotomy does not have some form of arena combat, especially in the Amarr region. I even think Gladiators are mentioned in a couple missions.

I don't care either way, I just think some of the arguments against it are pretty weak.

The people who know how to pick their fights just move on to easier prey if they see that someone may have planned better. Why take the risk?

Killboard efficiency is srs bsns.

People always afraid of things which threaten their life style and stability. Even if their life style is ****** and new things are good - for many stability is still preferred option.

How is it "more hardcore" than flying out solo and finding a fight?

Why is this mechanic needed?

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Why is it not needed?

Because the vaunted PvPer's are mostly gankers that couldn't fight a fair fight if it slapped them in the face.

EVE attracts the worst dregs of humanity with it's open sandbox concept.
It also attracts some really good smart people, but most of them get tired of the behavior of the kiddy pirate fanbase and leave....

Because you can already fight agreed duels, and real fights.

Now tell me why do you think it's needed?

I'm not talking about behaviour GÇö I'm talking about mechanics.

All mechanics for consensual combat are encapsulated within the mechanics of non-consensual combat, and no consensual combat can ever be allowed to exist outside the real of non-consensual engagements.

Thus, consensual mechanics are either unnecessary or game-breaking. Either way, there's no point in or need to add them.

You must be blind or something. A duel is consensual PVP without a sec hit where you and another player can duel without the interruption of another player. Bad attitudes are game breaking and there is no point or need for that either.

Why are you willingly ignoring the whole point of the argument,
namely that nowhere in EvE, at no time ever, people were/are/should be shielded from the others ?
(edit: in space, of course)

There are all kinds of shields from others, it depends on which side of the shield you are on to see it though. The Op was asking about adding a feature that allows him to engage in a duel. Duels can exist in EVE, and with the attitudes of the player base, they should.

I think what you're really seeing is a stigma.

"Arena" invokes a rather specific though. WoW, and the segregated PvP world. You "enter" an arena, that is not part of the world and has no impact on it. When you say "arena" in EVE, I believe people automatically think of WoW style arenas, were you would be ported to a "safe" place, to fight for no real loss with someone else.


Instead of arena maybe people should start saying "tournament".
A place IN THE GAME SPACE, that isn't seperated from everything else, were a number of peopel can compete in a structured match, and risk assets for the possibility to gain more assets.


I have no problem with "arenas" as long as they're done EVE style.
That would be tools that allow for players to set up tournaments, the ability to gamble on the outcome, and be able to watch as it happens; when it happesns.

If I can't fly to the "arena" and watch the match unfold, then it doesn't belong in EVE.

It's not the fair fights people are worried about (although there's no denying that many people feel if you fight fair you're doing it wrong).

The most significant objection to a system of consensual pvp is that it represents a move away from non-consensual pvp, which is a cornerstone of this game.

GǪand at that point, it has very little to do with arenas, and rather revolves around the Gǣbetting officeGǥ, presumably some expansion or generalisation of the bounty and war report systems.

Wait, how does this "duel" make people "immune" to interference from outsiders?

Wait, is CCP actually doing this or is this just a suggestion from (I hope) a small portion of the playerbase?

Guess I made a mistake coming back to Eve. I was there from 2003 fending off the people who for some reason choose to neglect other games with perfectly good carebear mechanics to cry about how Eve, one of the few games out there featuring non-consensual pvp, should be less like... Eve.

It's sad that after ten years of sticking to their guns, I picked a time to come back when CCP finally seems to be giving in to the pansies. Why do some people feel the need to come into this game that is advertised heavily as a hardcore, non-consensual pvp game and try to change the core of what makes it what it is? And why is CCP giving into them after all these years?

Can't your ship can't be prepared for PVE/ Industry and PVP. Must be those darn broken game mechanics again.

But, for some odd reason, when it comes to piracy, wars, military aggressions and so on the same brutality is not accepted and everything is suposed to be fair and gentle. Like:

- "Pardon me, Sir, I'd like to stick a Nova Torpedo in your ass. Would you be so nice to consent to this?"
- "Of course my noble friends, only give me 30 minutes to fit the proper modules on my ship and let's do it in a safe, private place where nobody will bother us"

You must be blind or something. A duel is consensual PVP without a sec hit where you and another player can duel without the interruption of another player.

You must be blind or something. A duel is consensual PVP without a sec hit where you and another player can duel without the interruption of another player. Bad attitudes are game breaking and there is no point or need for that either.

Aye. Point is:

industry/trading gameplay is brutal in EvE:

"you don't like my prices? Then GTFO and buy somewhere else"
"What? you made wrong market investiments and lost your money? Train your skill more and learn to platy, nobody will cuddle you"

It's in no way consensual.This is fine, and accepted by everyone.


But, for some odd reason, when it comes to piracy, wars, military aggressions and so on the same brutality is not accepted and everything is suposed to be fair and gentle. Like:

- "Pardon me, Sir, I'd like to stick a Nova Torpedo in your ass. Would you be so nice to consent to this?"
- "Of course my noble friends, only give me 30 minutes to fit the proper modules on my ship and let's do it in a safe, private place where nobody will bother us"

Good god some of you people are ******* dense.

People used to be able to "duel" by stealing from each other's cans in highsec, thereby allowing both of them to attack the other without getting concorded. The new crimewatch system removed the ability to do this. CCP, not wanting to be jerks and telling people who like to 1v1 to **** off, are adding this dueling stuff in to allow people to DO THE SAME THING THEY WERE DOING BEFORE.

Stop freaking out ... you all look like idiots.

Just to be clear ... dueling is not a new feature, it is replacing a feature removed with crimewatch.

Honestly you're all like my sister's kids:

"Want to try a bite of this pear?"
"No I don't like pears! ... ... ... what's a pear?"

And the exact same CONCORD protection that currently exists would presumably also be active when people are fighting 1v1 in some kind of 'arena' system. I'm not sure where people got the idea they'd get special protection.

Their is no such thing as non-consensual pvp, you make it consensual when you login.

Why have an arena for two teams, when nothing can be allowed to restrict others to enter that arena and interfere at will?

Yes, repeat the mantra. Stop all thought.

This might blow your mind, but even people who consent to being attacked by someone else, can still be attacked by other people who they do not consent to. Nothing is really changing whatsoever, so everyone can stop thinking this is some kind of insult to what they see as the ideological foundation of EVE.

I know it's hard for themepark extraordinaire players to adapt sandbox mmo-rpg's, but this is getting ridiculous.

I made this character 8 years ago.

*sets fire to another strawman*

Their is no such thing as non-consensual pvp, you make it consensual when you login.

There is no non-consensual PvP in EvE. Undocking is consent.

Sure there is. There is "Mutual" wars, both sides consent to unrestricted combat-PVP. That marketing mubojumbo sounds great at fanfest though, but if it were true there wouldn't be a high sec and there wouldn't be penalties.

Eve is about consequences. If you get into a brawl in a bar downtown, you probably get picked up by the police and sent to jail. Firing without permission from Concord has roughly the same consequences. You expose yourself to the possibility of someone throwing that illegal punch when you undock.

Would be interesting if the police got to blow up your car for getting into a fight, though.

Want some - one on one?

Just find somewhere quiet and get to it.

No need for a new mechanic to facilitate it.

Eve is about consequences. If you get into a brawl in a bar downtown, you probably get picked up by the police and sent to jail. Firing without permission from Concord has roughly the same consequences. You expose yourself to the possibility of someone throwing that illegal punch when you undock.

Would be interesting if the police got to blow up your car for getting into a fight, though.

There you go again trying to relate EVE to RL. again. Whats wrong with having consensual-PVP?

All PvP is consensual, unless someone forces you to login in.

That makes no sense and runs contrary to every action taken by anyone in game to avoid combat.

Where was all this fear mongering when people used cans to duel on the Jita undock pre-crimewatch?

You are very confused and fail to understand the nature of the game. You login, you accept the EvE sandbox.

It's like people complaning when they lose at the money in Monopoly.

Accepting the sandbox and consenting to all PVP are not equivalent. You accept that anyone at any time may engage you as the opportunity occurs, but that is not an agreement to engage all who would try.

You you even understand what a sandbox mmo-rpg is?

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something

Maybe people have realized where all the pvp went to. And now that they know CCP is supporting hisec in order to have "pvp light", they're plain ... confused.

Way to ignore everyone saying it's a pointless mechanic in a game where what the whiners are asking for ALREADY FREAKING EXISTS... Good job.

Oh, and reading comprehension ftw.

Way to ignore everyone saying it's a pointless mechanic in a game where what the whiners are asking for ALREADY FREAKING EXISTS... Good job.

Oh, and reading comprehension ftw.

How do you use current mechanics to allow 2 parties to engage in a limited conflict similar to what the duel system will allow?

I've seen the accusation several times that the functionality of the dueling mechanic already exists, but I can't think of a way to replicate it. Since several others have stated it I will gladly concede my issue in regard to that is ignorance and ask: How do you use current mechanics to allow 2 parties to engage in a limited conflict similar to what the duel system will allow?

Way to ignore everyone saying it's a pointless mechanic in a game where what the whiners are asking for ALREADY FREAKING EXISTS... Good job.

Oh, and reading comprehension ftw.

Move lowsec, warp planet 6 and fight like a boss.

Because can-flipping is two people operating within the laws of the EVE universe, circumventing CONCORD rules to go a round or two without the cops crashing their party. It doesn't stop someone else from crashing their party, just provides the party in a way that fits the universe as it exists.

Adding a duel button will only accomplish one thing: You won't be able to fly through any populated system without getting spammed with 347 duel request windows. I'd rather fly past humorously-named yellow containers, or get jumped by someone willing to be a pirate (and accept those consequences) than be bothered with even a single duel request window.

That doesn't provide any of the benefits of the duel system.

But through planning ahead and picking your fights to make sure you're going to win, things become very controlled and lack risk.

Or the safety; it merely removes the risk that is the hallmark of Eve Online. Curious that, no?

I don't want to play WoW in Space. I don't want to play Aeon in Space. You guys want that pussification in the way you play, leave. I'll happily hold the door for you (and no, I don't want your tainted stuffs).

What risk was removed? Via can flipping you could get this in the past. Where you rallying so hard against them as well?

What possibly needs to happen is that some eve players need to stop using wow as an excuse to be blind about what is actually going on here.

I understand your point, but the thing is - people have a very good reason to cry WoW when nearly anything in WoW is ever brought up as a potential change to EVE. It's because WoW is so monumentally bad in every way, that it's quite frightening for anyone who's been though it to feel like the same thing might happen to EVE - a game that is possibly the last bastion of hope in the MMO universe.

Apologies if this post sounds sarcastic, it's really not. WoW really is that bad, EVE really is (by comparison) not, and I know I'd be pretty upset if that ceased to be the case.

I can understand the sentiment. I'm not a fan of Wow, but I'm not prepared to call it objectively bad. Firstly because I've only experienced a fraction of it before quitting, 2nd because different people look for different things in games.

Philosophically Eve and wow are completely incompatible, this I will grant you. That doesn't mean they are completely mechanically incompatible as well. Lets look at duels objectively:

No Instances
No prevention of loss
No protection from outside interference
The addition of a person who can treat you like the 2 of you are in nullsec for 5 min since you last aggressed each other
No guarantee that any agreed upon limitations (ships/fits/etc) in the 1v1 you arranged will be honored

They both have duels, but wow duels are honorable affairs in a bubble while eve duels are just like the rest of the game.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system,

Those stipulations sound great, but they still need an "invitation" of sorts to get the ball rolling. Also, if it needs all those stipulations to begin to fit properly, then how's it differ from simply going safeties-off and engaging your target? No instances, no prevention of loss, no buffering from interference, freely attackable for a period of time, and no guarantees of honor from the other party.

It's coding time spent on providing something we can already do, and the new coding doesn't prevent someone from *cheating*, so what's the point? It has to be just the beginning of something new, like removing any other kind of combat from hi sec. Only then would we need the dueling mechanism. Right now it's redundant, and they wouldn't have spent manhours on redundant, would they?

Just to ask again, in case I missed a legitimate answer somewhere: How do you use current mechanics to allow 2 parties to engage in a limited conflict similar to what the duel system will allow?

Player A ejects a can. Player B takes from that can to go suspect. Player B then docks/cloaks/whatever to hide from any third parties attempting to shoot them. Wait 14 minutes.

With 1 minute left on the suspect timer, Player A shoots Player B. 5 minute LE begins and the suspect timer is waited out. Now you've got 4 minutes to reship, repair, whatever before you start shooting each other with much honor.

Yes, it's a tedious and stupid way to do it. Which is why I think duels are a good thing.

There is always the risk of interference.

Or have a mechanic and do it wherever, taking the chance of interference in more crowded places without increasing the odds of it happening too greatly. Why should people who want to duel not be able to just outside of a hub station or anywhere else?

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Posting in a thread about fred who's soon to be dead laying in a bed next to the girl he wed.

Or the safety; it merely removes the risk that is the hallmark of Eve Online. Curious that, no?

I don't want to play WoW in Space. I don't want to play Aeon in Space. You guys want that pussification in the way you play, leave. I'll happily hold the door for you (and no, I don't want your tainted stuffs).

Or the safety; it merely removes the risk that is the hallmark of Eve Online. Curious that, no?

I don't want to play WoW in Space. I don't want to play Aeon in Space. You guys want that pussification in the way you play, leave. I'll happily hold the door for you (and no, I don't want your tainted stuffs).

If you want consensual PvP then I want consensual market prices.

Is it wrong to have PvP "enforced" and not consensual? Then why should I've your market prices enforced to me? I want to consensually decide what I've to pay!

Or the safety; it merely removes the risk that is the hallmark of Eve Online. Curious that, no?

I don't want to play WoW in Space. I don't want to play Aeon in Space. You guys want that pussification in the way you play, leave. I'll happily hold the door for you (and no, I don't want your tainted stuffs).

What puzzle me more is the fact that if you run a 20-men mining op, wiping wwhole belts and leaving no margin for a solo miner this is perfectly fine, nobody argue about numbers and fairness. Nobody cries or think they should scale down their numbers or be policied by some game mechanics nor someone call them "******* grieffers"

Or when you use a freighter to move massive goods on the market bumping the prices and ******* the profit of a someone that can rely only on iteron mark II. This is accepted. Why don't cry about this too? What about adding some game mechanics to atificially limit this and make things "fair"? Would you folks be happy?

Here's what I'm reading between the lines: "PVPers" don't want high sec dwellers to be able to PVP in high sec, with CONCORD protection. They want them to go to low or null. If they can "duel" in high sec, they won't have any incentive to risk a trip to more dangerous areas where "PVPers" can gank them without recourse. Also, if they are practicing PVP, they'll be better prepared for confrontations in more dangerous parts of space and might actually be able to deal with "PVPers" when they finally do go to low or null.

I haven't read the whole thread, but in what I read, I didn't see anyone talk about duelers being rendered invincible and ungankable while they were dueling. I didn't see anyone suggest that there could be no cheating, metagaming, shenanigans, or whatever you want to call it in these "duels". And, if we consider the possibility of a mutual war between two 1-man corps, or a drawn out "Limited Engagement" involving just two people, or even just a random contest between two people low sec or null or just flagged as suspect in high sec, then there are ALREADY duels in EVE. If you are arguing against dueling, then you might as well just go ahead and call for an outright ban on PVPing in high sec. That's really what you want, for people to NEED to go to where you can attack them without recourse in order to play the game they want to play. It's just another way of calling for a nerf to high sec. You don't want people to make ISK in high sec. You don't want people to do industry in high sec. You don't want people to "gf" in high sec. You just want to them to go to where you are already established, so you can dominate them. But, I say, don't worry uber-pirate or elite PVPer. That noob in a Badger will keep trying to run your gate camp. He didn't go to low or null to PVP in the first place.

Here's what I'm reading between the lines: "PVPers" don't want high sec dwellers to be able to PVP in high sec, with CONCORD protection. They want them to go to low or null. If they can "duel" in high sec, they won't have any incentive to risk a trip to more dangerous areas where "PVPers" can gank them without recourse. Also, if they are practicing PVP, they'll be better prepared for confrontations in more dangerous parts of space and might actually be able to deal with "PVPers" when they finally do go to low or null.

I haven't read the whole thread, but in what I read, I didn't see anyone talk about duelers being rendered invincible and ungankable while they were dueling. I didn't see anyone suggest that there could be no cheating, metagaming, shenanigans, or whatever you want to call it in these "duels". And, if we consider the possibility of a mutual war between two 1-man corps, or a drawn out "Limited Engagement" involving just two people, or even just a random contest between two people low sec or null or just flagged as suspect in high sec, then there are ALREADY duels in EVE. If you are arguing against dueling, then you might as well just go ahead and call for an outright ban on PVPing in high sec. That's really what you want, for people to NEED to go to where you can attack them without recourse in order to play the game they want to play. It's just another way of calling for a nerf to high sec. You don't want people to make ISK in high sec. You don't want people to do industry in high sec. You don't want people to "gf" in high sec. You just want to them to go to where you are already established, so you can dominate them. But, I say, don't worry uber-pirate or elite PVPer. That noob in a Badger will keep trying to run your gate camp. He didn't go to low or null to PVP in the first place.

Here's what I'm reading between the lines

How something like this extends to 7+ pages is beyond me. Did anyone even read the dev post about this? All they are doing is adding a mechanic for what used to be can flipping to get a fight. How is that so controversial?

You can still gank.
You can still put out a can to catch unaware noobs.
You can still do all of the other PVP that used to occurr.
You can still have your neutral RR come in and help in your little duel (with the same neutral RR consequences).


Ultimately you can choose to ignore it.

Clearly you haven't followed the conversation, else you would understand that discussions about making war decs "more fair" has been the hot topic as of late and the dueling system is being used as a "hey this works better, its how war decs should be"... kind of line of thinking.

Its all theorycraft of course, but what isn't on the forums.

How something like this extends to 7+ pages is beyond me. Did anyone even read the dev post about this? All they are doing is adding a mechanic for what used to be can flipping to get a fight. How is that so controversial?

It's not.

The controversial part is that people still think there should be some form of consensual-only fighting, and since this new old feature doesn't provide it, they're trying to frame it as one anyway so they can then argue that adding instanced combat wouldn't make any difference.

The controversial part is that people still think there should be some form of consensual-only fighting, and since this new old feature doesn't provide it, they're trying to frame it as one anyway so they can then argue that adding instanced combat wouldn't make any difference.

Because it goes against one of the fundamental principles of Eve - that once you undock, you can be attacked any where, any time, any place.

To change this, is to undermine the very basis of Eve.

I don't see why these things couldn't be set up within the current systems, with simple war decs between corporations, similar to say red vs blue but with members of each side organising smaller more specific fights/events amongst themselves - for example a handful of pilots on Side A could get together and offer something to side B, like "hey next monday night we'd like a five a side fight, t1 cruisers only :)" to get something started with whatever rules they like. If the other side decided to cheat then... well, that's EVE. Either your side could start cheating too, or you could have leadership of both sides help enforce people adhering to the agreed "rules"

As EVE becomes more popular, we can expect the influx of folks with ideas like this. Many have only played one other MMO which was geared toward the more....simple.

Instanced PvP, and it would have to be to be consensual, would spoil any immersion and just generally be lame. Oh hey gonna stop playing and go duel now.

WTF....

This and "let us grind SP" or "Let us train more than one toon" are unfortunately signs that new players are logging on for better or worse.

The truth is these so called "PVPers" are not even PVPers, they are just ganker/griefers. EVE is a griefer game and they want that, I'm not saying to change it, it's a niche. All games used to be grief fests until game companies realized people want to "god forbid" have a chance to fight back. Now let me be clear, I'm not calling for change, I don't care, hell I will fit a gank destroyer and pop an AFK autopiloter for that "EVE pvp experience" before I leave. The griefers are not calling for actual PVP, they want more victims other than the noob who wanders into their gate camp every other day. I played Age of Conan back in 2008 when Goons (goonheim) tried to "take over" the game, that doesn't work when everyone is more or less equal, they got camped, got bored and went back to EVE to be Uber.

Except that wardecs are a terrible mechanic for spontaneous, 1 time fights. 24 hour lead up and 50m price tag for a single 1 off? Also the agreements you mention already exist in exactly the same way in the duel system and wardecs since those agreements are up to player engagement and enforcement, not the in game mechanics, for both.

Except that wardecs are a terrible mechanic for spontaneous, 1 time fights. 24 hour lead up and 50m price tag for a single 1 off? Also the agreements you mention already exist in exactly the same way in the duel system and wardecs since those agreements are up to player engagement and enforcement, not the in game mechanics, for both.

Paving the way for consent-only wardecs.

The way it should be :P

Who said we needed it?
Who said we didn't already have it?
Are you proposing that fair fights, arranged combat, 1vs1 engagements, etc. be banned?
Why not make it easier to set those up and deter/detect interference from others?
How does it affect YOUR game?
Why should YOUR game take precedence over people who might want to duel?

Who said we needed it?
Who said we didn't already have it?
Are you proposing that fair fights, arranged combat, 1vs1 engagements, etc. be banned?
Why not make it easier to set those up and deter/detect interference from others?
How does it affect YOUR game?
Why should YOUR game take precedence over people who might want to duel?

Who said we needed it?
Why not make it easier to set those up and deter/detect interference from others?
How does it affect YOUR game?

Actually it does affect; it's a theme park game mechanic added in a sandbox setting.
What's the difference?
A sandobox mechanic do not give to the players a premade outcome but provide tools to build their own.

So in a theme park, for istance, you may have a quest asking you to escort an NPC from point X to point Y and the gameplay will develop along a predeterminated trail with a premade outcome.

In a sandbox you don't have this, you may have a corp mate asking you to scout his hauler from system X to system Y, the whole gameplay develops from players real interactions and needs. And the outcome is not predterminated just cause third paarties can interfere/interact.

In our case the need to set up a duel, to find a way to do it, to grant a safe area for it and so on are all things players have to work to set up; all this working produce game contents. Not only for the 2 involved in the duel but also for others.

Duelling/Arena systems on the countrary clear all the this and push (cause is an easy shortcut) a premade outcome to something that, anyway, you can already do now.

The concern here is noit the duelling system itself but the fact that devs seems to not see this difference or to not care for it, preferring to overwrite/replace sandbox logic with theme park mechanics (more easy for them to manage).

If they were somehow reducing non-consensual PvP that would make sense, but they're not. People can still engage in it as freely as they ever have. All they're doing is adding even more ship combat on top of it.

I'm missing the part where dueling and consensual pvp is somehow absent.

All kinds of PvP are consentual. You consent to PvP when you log in.

Simple: because the existence of non-consensual PvP means that there is no need for consensual PvP. The mechanics for the former means you can have the latter at any time you want already.

To use Malc's new favourite word: consensual PvP is a wedge proposal GÇö you ask for a single unnecessary thing to be added, and then for the unnecessary:ness to expand to include some other portion that seems related; and then expand it further; and further; and then you suggest that, hey, doesn't this really cover all the bases? So why do we need this antiquated non-consensual system?

The core problem is that all suggestion for consensual fights rest on the presumption that engaging in one would lock you out of all other combat, and that simply cannot happen in EVE GÇö there can be no safe havens. As a result, any such system becomes meaningless: why agree to a fight when all the PvP is still non-consensual? Why have an arena for two teams, when nothing can be allowed to restrict others to enter that arena and interfere at will?

Tbh It appears most of nullsec has adopted consensual pvp.

"Wargames" online.

If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that it is more to do with the notion of a player going around sending invites to PvP than anything else. If you think about it, in the context of EVE, that is rather absurd.

Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.

Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.

Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.

If I had to give an opinion, I'd say that it is more to do with the notion of a player going around sending invites to PvP than anything else. If you think about it, in the context of EVE, that is rather absurd.

Sorry, Tippia. I only decided to drop this on you because you are annoying. Non-consensual PvP may hve been a part of the game since the 1890's, when you started playing, but was it ever a good idea? Sometimes I wonder.

Most players DO NOT consent to non-consensual PvP when they log in. They spend the whole time they are logged in hoping that no 1%ers find them.

PvP in EVE is consentual.
Whenever you undock you consent to PvP.

You understand this is like entering a vegetarian restaurant and ordring an hamburger, right? And insisting "why not? meat is better".

beside, this is not about non consensual PvP, is about accepting a game model developing from open interactions among players (competitive/conflictual interactions or not). Open PvP is a mere consequence of this setting, negating it means negating the interaction model as well.

The kind of game based on this are also the only one able to develop a meaningfull crafting, market, industry, trading. Is not a coincidence, there are a reasons.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Exactly do not fly what you cannot afford to Lose, High Sec included. I think a change to the duel system would be welcomed.

CCP Please flag both parties as outlaws for fighting in concorde controlled space, concorde should not allow school boy squabbles to go unpunished.

But through planning ahead and picking your fights to make sure you're going to win, things become very controlled and lack risk.

Drop a yellow can in front of someone 5 hours old and Label it 'Goodies'. That certainly maximizes your chances.

Also there is that same rhetoric again. Just a question: Can you expand on the statement, "Whenever you undock you consent to PvP?" So far as I can figure by my own understanding of "consent" the only people in highsec who are really living up to it are bait ships with suspect flags.

I, for one, would be a lot happier with consensual PvP being formalized. Let the 1%ers go out and blow each other up. I can't see a downside. You serve no real purpose in the game, and you definitely don't have an impact on the economy, no matter what you think.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent.

Throughout the history of this game, PvP has mostly revolved around attacking people who are unprepared for PvP, or simply outnumbering your opponent. You make sure you're going to win before you even engage, and there is little risk involved if you plan ahead. This is what your average EVE PvP player has grown accustomed to, and some are quite good at it.

Reading the negative comments on the so-called 'arena' system, you hear a lot of people saying it's more suited to carebears or something, but what could be more hardcore than a 1v1 fight between two ships fitted for PvP, with no friends to save either of them? You are on an even footing with your opponent, and only your personal ability and intelligence can save you.

Why do so many people think that's a bad thing?

Eve is a cold dark place where you are never truly safe. CCP designed it this way, they wanted a safer area for people to train in but allowed enough mechanics for violence to occur wherever you are.

Thats why there is a time delay for Concorde punishment that increases as the security of a system decreases.

If CCP wanted people to be completely safe in certain areas they would of implemented the same anti-PvP method employed by most other MMO's that want safe PvE areas, and that is nobody can attack you unless you specifically flag yourself as open to PvP.

This is not the case in eve and is not the intention. For instance someone could attack you in high sec for annoying them on the forums whilst no PvP or duel flags are in place, Concorde would destroy them but if they can kill you first they are quite welcome to do so and apart for the Concorde action nothing further would happen. However CCP may frown upon someone who repeatedly attacked you in this manner at every opportunity but that would be verging on harassment.

So if there are mechanics that enable PvP avoidance how can logging in or undocking be considered consent for combat? Dwelling in highsec is one of those means, so unless you are giving up your eligibility for concord retaliation it doesn't seem you are giving consent to aggressors.

What impact do you think you have on the economy

Whats there to be afraid of? It just turns everything boring. Without threat, there is no excitement.

Wishing to fight someone in an honorable fashion is NOT being a carebear. Not wanting to fight period and stay docked up when challenged is lol

Oh, I have a very small impact on the economy. See, I'm one of the ones who produces things for ship construction and POS refueling. I know it is a pretty weird thing to do, but I enjoy it a lot more than blowing things up.

Cool. And don't you see as if your gameplay is viable and you can enjoy building things is just because someone else blow those things up and need to rebuy?

Is not abstract theory, has be experimented:

In Ultima Online (another game known for his open brutal PvP setting and in deepth crafting system and player driven economy) at some point they decided to make everyone happy to split the game world in two:

Trammel (only consensual PvP) and Fellucca (open PvP)

This totally destroyed the game economy, most of the players found more convenient to stay in the "consensual PvP" world also if the open PvP one was far more ritch as resources. Soon everyone farmed safe till becoming dirti ritch, had everything and there was no more need of crafting, the igame economy collapsed under the inflaction and the game died fast.

Isn't so.
High-sec do not prevent anyone to attack. Concord mechanics simply sanction "illegal" aggression, do not prevent it.
Open PvP in EVE is enabled everywhere in the same identical way. What can change are the possible effects/ consequences of it (security status, cocncord intervention and so on).

The only mechanics preventing direct PvP engagment is, indeed, docking. This is where the say "when you undock you consent" come from.

Cool. And don't you see as if your gameplay is viable and you can enjoy building things is just because someone else blow those things up and need to rebuy?

Is not abstract theory, has be experimented:

In Ultima Online (another game known for his open brutal PvP setting and in deepth crafting system and player driven economy) at some point they decided to make everyone happy to split the game world in two:

Trammel (only consensual PvP) and Fellucca (open PvP)

This totally destroyed the game economy, most of the players found more convenient to stay in the "consensual PvP" world also if the open PvP one was far more ritch as resources. Soon everyone farmed safe till becoming dirti ritch, had everything and there was no more need of crafting, the igame economy collapsed under the inflaction and the game died fast.

They are not consenting tothe engagement directly, rather consenting to the possibility. I hole this has helped you understand EVE better. :)

WoW is that way -------------->

non-consensual pvp has always been a part of EVE.

nerfing the sandbox aspect of EVE by making PvP consensual would remove the one thing that makes EVE different.

For me, WOW is NO WAY.

Just because something has been done a particular way for a thousand years, doesn't mean it was ever the right way to do it.

So go out and run over your neighbor's kid. That should keep you amused for a few minutes.

You can already have a consensual fight if you want, just ask someone for an arranged 1v1. If they honor it great, you got your consensual PvP, if they dont honor it, welcome to EVE where people can and will stab you in the back.

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.

[quote=Sura Sadiva]
And there are such means (warp stabs/interdiction nullification/high agility ships/situational awareness/etc) that do not include docking. Using highsec consequences as a deterrent is one such means. They do not guarantee success so they are not prevention. But they are used as avoidance. So how is someone who is using any of the above or others I may have omitted consenting people engaging them when they are actively working to avoid that engagement?

Then the statement at hand is objectively false. There is consensual PvP. And there is no reason it can't be supported so long as it in no way detracts from non-consensual PvP.

No, actually there are tons of reasons, see the last 10 pages.

No, actually there are tons of reasons, see the last 10 pages.

That's not avoiding "pvp" that's managing to survive a pvp engagment.

If your transport is catched on a gate and you outmanouver your aggressor you're engaged in PvP (like or dislike it), and if you manage to get out you win it.

The "you give your consent to pvp undocking" is only a way to say that is impliit in the game mechanics, there's no /pvp on /pvp off switch.
Damn, is like playing tetris and then compalining cause you never gave your consent for those blocks to fall down.

Yes, of course you're right, it's creation/destruction cycle.

However I don't see too many post complaint on the forum against people building things. So maybe "the others" understand the sinergy (and the game logic) better.
And nobody post on the forum demanding to change industry in a way so that "consent" from PvPers to build should be required. You can do your game freely and do not need any consent to it, why don't want to allow the same for the others?

I don't see that happening at all. That's why I disagree with all this stuff about PvP being essential to the economy.

Eliminate most of the PvPers and you eliminate many of the bots. Mineral prices go up. Use the minerals, and PI to build POSes. Mine 'moon goo'. Explore. Expand. Even without PvPers mining in 0.0 is dangerous. Lost ships = production opportunities.

But I don't even advocate getting rid of all PvPers. Let them play around with themselves. Once again, Lost ships = production opportunities. The ones who are really rabid will stay.

But look at it another way. What good are they? If we weren't here, they wouldn't be either.

Now I have studied economics. Probably more than most. I don't think this economy has ANY need for PvPers, but they do have some role in the appeal of the game. Fine. Like I said, let them play with themselves. Because a big problem is that the ones who aren't good enough to get easy kills turn into hatchery poachers, and gankers. Personally, I can't see any reason, in game or out, for catering to these people.